A conversation about armed teachers

11Jan13

This is going to be a little different, and longer, than my usual posts. It’s a Facebook conversation sparked by one of my last essays, Unarmed Teachers and our Addiction to Failure. I decided to post the entire conversation because it is very informative, and highlights something we usually miss during this debate.

I had this conversation with a high school friend. He’s a good guy, very intelligent and educated. He wants children to be safe, and raised reasonable objections to my support for armed teachers. I think my friend represents a great many people who oppose armed teachers, or support gun control, or oppose concealed carry by private citizens. They oppose armed citizens because, in my opinion, they (generally speaking) don’t understand the realities. That doesn’t make them evil. It just means they haven’t heard respectful, reasonable presentations of the need for armed citizenry.

The great gun debate, following the Newtown shooting, is reaching new heights of divisiveness. My pro-gun friends on FB post an endless stream of pictures and articles pointing out how stupid anti-gun people are, my anti-gun friends post the same about gun owners. Gun owners are making pledges to physically resist gun confiscation while gun control proponents voice their support for a partial repeal of the Bill of Rights. Lost in this screaming match is a basic truth: if the goal is to protect the innocent, which is what we ALL say we want, then we need to stop screaming, stop insulting, stop caricaturizing, and actually listen to each other.

I’ve included all the conversation, other than a side joke and two short lines discussing a typo. I’ve also put the points and counterpoints in the correct order, instead of the nonsequential way internet conversations often go. I will invite my friend to read it to ensure nothing has been left out of his side of the debate.

I realize this is a long conversation, but some issues are too complex to be be addressed in a short, attention-deficit manner. In the middle of the conversation I highlighted one sentence, because it addresses a comment I keep hearing about “armed citizens making it harder for the police to do their jobs”. I owe you one if you read all of it, and would appreciate your feedback.

*********************************************************************

F: Hi Chris, you make some clear points in this blogpost, some that I actually can agree with….but I pose this question to your statement that ‘unarmed teachers’ doesn’t work. Why, in most countries, where teachers are not armed, there are a small number to no incidents of ‘schoolyard’ massacres, where in the top 10 worst school shootings of all time in the world, the US makes the list 4 times? What are they doing different working with the same ‘unarmed teachers’ policy than the US?

Me: F, good question. My gut reaction is that they have a different culture, something more along the lines of where we were prior to the mid-90’s or so. But I don’t think (and I’m not suggesting you believe this) that unarmed teachers are a causal link to their lack of school violence. We didn’t have unarmed teachers because we didn’t need them; unfortunately, due to a variety of factors, we need them now. We can also look at school districts in Utah and one in Texas as micro examples that refute your claim: they have armed teachers, and haven’t experienced school shootings.

What I think you’re getting at is that it’s the gun culture in the US that produces these shootings. I would agree that the gun culture is one small part of the problem, but it also involves the glorification of violence in movies, music and video games. I should have added in my essay that arming teachers isn’t the entire solution, it’s just part of the solution. A real, workable solution will involve prevention, deterrence and response. I’m focused on the tactical, response aspect because it’s what I know. Others with more experience and knowledge will have to figure out prevention and deterrence.

F: Also, regarding your scenarios, I understand (and don’t disagree) them, but have you considered the other scenarios (I know, there are an infinite number that can potentially occur, but since you brought them up), like what if a student snaps, disarms the teacher and now becomes a shooter….the teacher indirectly has armed the shooter….or vice versa, what if the teacher ‘snaps'(but as we all know there has never been a case of teacher on student violence, not like a teacher has ever grabbed a student by the neck throwing him over a desk). Plus the quickest way to disarm a teacher is to take a hostage, giving up their gun and providing more ammo to the shooter.

Me: This goes into another subject entirely, but for tactical and practical reasons the teachers should not tell any student they’re armed, or carry the weapon exposed. Responding to an active shooter isn’t a “quick draw” scenario, and teachers should carry with the weapon completely concealed. Teachers who have carried for years in Utah and Texas haven’t experienced any of the possibilities you described. And the likelihood that an educated, professional teacher will lose it and murder a student seems extremely unlikely, and definitely less likely than the possibility of a mass shooting in school. Again, teachers in certain places have been carrying for years, and those things just haven’t happened.

Students will not necessarily know what teachers are carrying. I’ve been carrying a pistol for almost 20 years, and there have been very few times anyone has known. Part of the reason people saw that I was armed on one or two occasions is that I carry a large pistol, because my duty is to take action, possibly at longer ranges, rather than only defend myself. A teacher, with a duty to defend him or herself and students in a close range encounter would not have to carry a weapon that large or obtrusive. Numerous small, easily concealable weapons would be appropriate for a teacher to carry, and could be carried in a “belly band” type of holster that is totally covered by clothing and holds the weapon flat against the carrier’s body. Hiding a weapon isn’t that hard. And again, teachers in certain areas have been doing it for years, without any of the tragedies you’ve described.

Your concern about a teacher killing a student, in particular, highlights a very common theme among those who support gun control: the belief that nobody, not even educated professionals with no criminal history (teachers), can be trusted with a weapon. I don’t know why this sentiment comes up so often, but it does. We’ve known teachers all our lives, and even the guy who throws a kid across a desk isn’t likely to pull a gun and murder him. I think it’s a misplaced worry at best, and at worst an indication (not for you personally) that people don’t trust even the best of our own citizens.

F: Of the people you say didn’t know you had a weapon, how many of them did you interact with on a daily basis, 8 hours a day? If It was a casual interaction, I can see how they could miss a weapon, but daily? Children are smart…they watch. Narrowing down someone who is carrying wouldn’t be too hard. Even strategically placed tattoos get seen, because we become lax and careless. We wouldn’t have a gun problem if all gun dealers/owners were diligent about gun safety and regulations. Remember, a gun isn’t born in the hands of a criminal, it follows a legal process there, the final step into their hands usually is illegal, but somewhere along the way a process was removed.

Me: Good point, and all I can tell you is there are extremely effective methods of concealing a weapon. That doesn’t mean a teacher won’t ever be discovered, but it isn’t likely, or at least not as likely as you think. We’d have to see if it’s happened in the schools where teachers have been carrying without incident for years.

F: But an armed teacher is even easier to defeat, all one has to do is take a hostage. I doubt that the teacher is going to take the Keanu Reeves tactic, shoot the hostage.

Me: If someone takes a hostage, it’s no longer an active shooter situation. There’s a huge difference between someone trying to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, and someone taking a hostage. It is definitely incorrect to say “all someone has to do is take a hostage”. There is no situation that simple. If someone is holding a hostage and ordering a teacher to give up his/her weapon, the teacher has to make a choice. 99 times out of 100, giving the hostage taker control by giving up a weapon is the wrong choice. First response is, hold your ground, maintain the weapon, and wait for help. If the hostage taker kills the student, chances are that’s what he would have done once you gave him your weapon anyway.

F: Again, like I said, there are infinite number of scenarios, but like you said, doing nothing doesn’t stop the potential threat. What I’m saying is, there isn’t one correct way to solve this issue. The threat will always exist and unfortunately there will be more incidents. Instead of making quick decisions on what may appear to be the best way to neutralize the situation, why can’t we investigate why other countries aren’t plagued with this dilemma and try to understand what change needs to be done.

I agree with you that it is most likely a cultural issue, but I’ll go further and say that as a nation, we baby our youth. The overprotection and over indulgence that some children receive(in my opinion) screws them up mentally.

Me: And I’m going to beat up on you a little bit for a logical fallacy you fell into: you asked, “why can’t we investigate what other countries have done?” My answer is, “who says we can’t?” If we allow teachers to carry, that doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t explore other possible solutions. It just means that we have a threat right now, and it has to be addressed right now. If we convene a panel of experts to uncover the real cause of school shootings today, it doesn’t save the kids in the school that get shot up tomorrow. As a medical analogy, if you encounter a guy bleeding to death from a stab wound, the first thing you do is stop the bleeding. You don’t take hours trying to figure out why the guy got stabbed, whether knives should be banned, or if people get stabbed a lot in other countries. First, stop the bleeding. Then figure out everything else.

F: Ah, an analogy, lets look at this:
So, the guy bleeding to death I’ll assume is ‘society’, the wound is a school shooting, and the assailant is a gun toting crazy guy. Well, yes stop the bleeding, but you don’t do that by giving the victim a knife. You apply pressure, and in extreme cases where the bleeding cant be stopped, a tourniquet. Now what that ‘pressure’ is and what the ‘tourniquet’ is, we have yet to see and everyone has a different opinion what those are. Have we reached the point where the ‘bleeding’ can’t be stopped?

I hope not, am I in favor of gun control(my opinion of ‘pressure’)? To a certain extent, yes. Am I for banning guns(my opinion of a tourniquet)?….no. Am I in favor of arming teachers no, but you do make some valid arguments. Even though if its a concealed weapon and it wouldn’t be made public which teacher is ‘carrying’, kids are smart and observant and they’ll figure it out. Just as they do now, they can tell which teachers are involved and they know where teachers place certain items.

Me: 1st question: in the analogy, you’re correct that the bleeding man was society. No, I’m not suggesting we give him a knife if he’s already bleeding. What I am suggesting is that we do what needs to be done now, rather than talk about it and implement some grand solution years later. All the discussion in the world will not stop the man from bleeding to death; only immediate action will. There is no way to “appease everyone” with a solution about how to stop bleeding. As you said, there’s only direct pressure or a tourniquet.

Likewise, there’s no response to active shooters that will appease everyone, but there is a response that works (armed resistance). When the incident has actually begun, discussion about what happens in the rest of the world makes no difference, nor does discussion about why it shouldn’t happen here. What I’m addressing is what to do once it’s begun.

F:You make a scenario of a teacher waiting in a classroom to engage the shooter, why not place heavy, steel, bullet proof doors in the classrooms that a teacher/student can lock? We’ll just let those students in the hall fend for themselves as they shouldn’t have been tardy anyways…lol…

I think there are many answers to this issue, which one is the best to address it and appease everyone? That in itself is another issue.

Me: Heavy steel doors,”bulletproof” windows, metal detectors, even high strength magnets as one person suggested, are all passive and extremely expensive measures. And they’re all easily defeated. Passive measures on the scale necessary to truly harden a school against attack would cost hundreds of billions of dollars nationwide. School districts don’t have that money. Allowing teachers to carry, on the other hand, is an affordable and faster way to harden a school, and would be more effective.

ME: My child’s life is priceless. Unfortunately, schools have budgets. I’m not saying it’s not worth the price, I’m saying districts don’t have that kind of money.

F: But I guess what I’m really trying to say is, I don’t disagree with you totally, but where do we stop? Today teachers, tomorrow movie attendants, next week Luby cafeteria workers? As a peace officer I’m sure you can appreciate arriving on a scene and dealing only with one potential armed suspect, but what if there’s 10 people wielding guns? How do you identify the ‘bad’ person? I know usually it’s the one clad in military style clothes armed to the teeth, but really, where does it stop?

Me: Regarding your last comment: it stops when the problem has been solved. If people are still being massacred but we stop adopting response measures because we feel like we’ve gone too far, then the problem hasn’t been solved. And as a police officer, yes I want to arrive on a scene and have an easily identifiable threat. However, making life easier for the police isn’t the goal. The goal is to save as many innocent lives as possible. If that makes life harder for me as a cop, that’s just how it is. Any policy designed to make life easier for cops, at the expense of the people we’re supposed to protect, is an automatic failure.

F: Oh, and I’m feeling a need to address something I’ve been hearing associated with the whole ‘arm teachers’ debate….I’ve been hearing a lot that ‘if people know that teachers may be armed, the shooter will think twice before shooting up a school.’ I think people are concluding that because a school is a gun-free zone that it was targeted for that reason. Noooo, it was targeted because these shooters were familiar with that place. Sandy Hook, Columbine, Virginia Tech, UT Texas, Ft. Hood, and the Batman shooting, well he probably cased that theatre and chose it because they were showing Batman and I would venture to say, that he probably was a patron of that theatre in the past.

Me: You’re correct that each of those shooters chose targets they were familiar with. But like the rest of this problem, there is no one answer that easily explains why each shooter picked their targets. They had different motivations, active shooters aren’t cookie-cutter personalities. Hassan stands out from the rest as being motivated by religious extremism rather than cowardice or mental issues. As far as the theater shooting goes, one thing I’ve read but not verified is that there were ten other theaters in the area that Holmes could have picked, including some closer to his house than the one he targeted. However, the one he targeted was the only one that was designated “gun free”. If that’s the case (and I’m not claiming it is), then yes, that’s pretty powerful evidence he chose it specifically because he didn’t want to worry about armed resistance. Anyone who wants to commit a mass murder but is afraid of anyone fighting back, and who wants to have a huge impact, can find no better targets than a “gun free” school. Unarmed children and women present almost zero threat.

F: I’ll try to answer quickly and I’m not trying to get a rise out of you, I always find your posts and responses informative and well thought out.

I’m not saying that we should have a round table, order lunch, and come up with elaborate structures. I’m saying, like you, action needs to be taken, but there are alternatives to just an armed response. You say no teacher will be forced to carry, but what if no teacher in that school wants to carry?

Me: Once the incident has begun, no alternative other than armed response will work. Prevention will hopefully stop anyone from getting to that point, but it won’t be 100% effective. Neither will deterrence. Armed response won’t be 100% effective either, but once you’re at the point of attack nothing else has a chance of success. You’re probably right that there will be some schools where every last teacher or administrator will refuse to carry a weapon. There is no answer to that. Hopefully a prospective murderer won’t know all the teachers refuse to carry, and will still worry that he might meet armed resistance (although I can see a group of extremely naive teachers publicly stating, “we at this school refuse to carry a weapon”). In that case, nothing can be done. If someone understands that a) there is a threat, b) the police or security guards can’t protect them, yet c) they refuse to protect themselves, well, what more can be done?

F: Well, Chris you have certainly given me food for thought. Not sure if I’ll ever be totally on board withy he idea if armed teachers, but I can see your rationale in support of it.

Me: That’s all I’m asking anyone to do, is consider it. Just as I consider the reasons to not support it. Thanks for the conversation, I think we both learned something.

Like this:

Related

I thought I had thought out everything about this issue until reading this post. You have certainly given me something to think about and possibly reconsider my stand on the issue of arming our teachers. Thank you. I will continue to read your entries.

Thank you for reading, and for being openminded about it. I read recently that 18 states actually allow teachers to carry (under varying circumstances). That was a surprise to me. While we don’t know the actual numbers of teachers who carry in those states, the report lends credence to my belief that armed teachers at the very least don’t contribute to tragedies.

when I went to school in the 50’s the teachers were armed because I saw the guns in their desks. we also locked up all the crazies so that they could not harm us or them selves.it was the communist teachers union who disarmed our schools and it was ted,the swimmer,kennedy who emptied mental hospitals and called it main streaming.doing this had predictable results.

when I went to high school, late 60’s the,rotc armory had racks upon racks of m14 rifles in it. you could take your .22 rifle up to the armory after school to shoot at the range if the rifle team was not there. can you imagine if you did that today! WE HAD NO SCHOOL SHOOTING! what the hell happened.

We were still shooting .22s in a basement range at my high school in 89. We never had a school shooting either. A smart guy commented on a military web forum, “Something’s broke, and it ain’t the guns.”

Great article, thanks for sharing. I have just stumbled upon your blog and appreciate the well-written articles that you post.

As far as armed teachers go, I don’t see a problem with it. In my younger years as a student, I doubt anyone in school will take a fellow student hostage just to get a teacher’s gun. Kids are smart, but let us not mistake our teachers for being stupid. A trained and intelligent teacher can properly conceal a handgun without being detected.

If a particular school has teacher’s and staff that all refuse to carry, they better implement other security measures like guards, security doors, etc. And even those can still be defeated.

The best defense to an armed shooter is also an armed individual. Like they say, “You don’t bring a knife to a gun fight”.

In our society we seem to be simultaneously removing the sense of personal responsibility, while also refusing to give credit to individual capabilities. Evidence of a growing belief in state over individuals? I’m not sure. Whatever it is, it’s not good for us.

I don’t think armed teachers would cause any problems at all, and I definitely don’t see students trying to disarm them (even if they knew a teacher was armed). The hostage thing just isn’t a realistic possibility. Teachers have been carrying for years in certain places without any of those doomsday scenarios happening, but opponents still throw those out as reasons it can’t be done.

I wish I had known about your blog when a friend’s daughter (7th grade teacher in Texas) posted on FB about how frightened she was about ‘teachers being forced to carry guns’. She was not (still isn’t) in the same frame of mind as your friend who can engage in logical debate without the rhetoric or hand wringing case of the vapors. Guns as inanimate objects scare her and anyone ‘who wants to carry one is likely to shoot someone if they are having a bad day’.

Guns in schools is one of the most frustrating debates I’ve ever had. It’s amazing how many people truly believe an average, rational, intelligent person will become an insane killer if you put a gun in their hand. A lot of people grasp at any straw they could possibly imagine as justification for teachers not to carry. Meanwhile, we’ve learned that one of the teachers at Newtown put all her students in a corner, then stood between them and the door. She was killed along with every single child in the room. How can anyone argue that it’s better for society that she couldn’t carry a weapon?

Thanks for the comment, Tass. Maybe your friend would benefit from reading that conversation.

I noticed at the very beginning, that your correspondent “F” seems to make a mistaken premise that is all too common. “Why”, he wonders, “in most countries…there are a small number to no incidents of ‘schoolyard’ massacres, where in the top 10 worst school shootings of all time in the world, the US makes the list 4 times?

Whoosh.

That “whoosh” is the sound of what should be the obvious flying right on past everybody. That if the US makes the list 4 times, then places that are not the US make the list 6 times. Six. As in, a bigger number than 4; as in, “most”.
As in – most of the school attacks took place in places that were not in the US.
If you look in Wikipedia (I know, I know – Wikipedia, but still…) there is a list of “Rampage Killers: School Massacres”. There are over 60 incidents listed, and a full 3/4 of them happened some place that was not in the US.

The mistaken premise is that these attacks are unique to, or at least peculiar to, the US. But, like, 3/4 happened somewhere else. It just isn’t so.

As for the choice of location; I have read in numerous places – and haven’t seen it refuted or disputed anywhere – that (with the single sole exception of the Gabby Gifford attempted assassination) every public mass shooting in the US has taken place in a so-called “gun-free zone”. Every single one.

I’ve seen stats about that here and there, and some have been contradictory. All the stats I’ve seen confirm that not all the worst school shootings have been here. I’ll have to do some research on that.

I haven’t seen any refutation of the “gun free zone” fact you cited. GFZs are an absolute fantasy. They may as well just add another sign that says “No Mass Murder Followed By Suicide” sign if they think a GFZ sign accomplishes anything.

Whoosh! again. There are more than 2 countries. It’s not a matter of us, and the rest of the world. In fact, there are around 196 countries. Using your numbers, 4 here, and 6 divided by the other 195 countries? About .03, or a ratio of .0075 to 1.

Or we can use the Wikipedia numbers.
1/4 of 60 is 15 here.
3/4 of 60 is 45 for the rest of the world, divided by 195 comes to .23 for each of the other countries.
The ratio would be .015 to 1.
Either way, the numbers don’t make us look good.

I would guess that factoring in population densities and other factors might change the numbers a bit, but not the obvious. We do have a problem here.

I’m not against arming teachers. Maybe it will work. Turning the US into a surveillance state certainly hasn’t.

Hey guys,
I know i’m digging out an old post but i never knew that some teacher in the US were armed… And honestly i was shocked… At first.
The all thing it wasn’t as clear in my mind.
I am a gun control person for one reason, it s quite simple i trully think that the human being is a stupid and a dangerous Life being ( myself included… In fact especially myself😉 )
In my opinion only hightly trained professionals should carry a gun, and i m not talking about ” i m going to the shooting range twice a week so i’m trained” cause we both know that someone could be a hell of a sharpshooter on a shooting range but a real nightmare in a hightly stressing situation, cause fear can make you do some really stupid things

The fact is saying what i say is really easy and almost useless in this debate cause your country is already full of guns ( and not only hand guns ) and the answer of this post is not about gun control but armed teachers

So what s the solution against school shooting ?
It s simple…
I have no (perfect )idea !

As you said having fortified schools could be good but honestly it s way to expensive to be done ( or maybe for few hightly costy private schools)
Giving guns to teacher?… For me it s just admitting we ve totaly give up, we ve lost faith in a better future
A lesser evil could be to have armed hightly trained security teams in each school, it would be costy i admit it but way less than switching schools in banksafes and more efficient than allowing randomn citizen ( even teachers) to carry a gun without a proper training.

Saying that i have few things to add about myself:
•i know i’m not from your country and i admit i completelly miss the all ” it s in the constitution thing”
It is indeed, but can t it evolve a bit? France have change it s own constitution several Times ( i know USA is not France) yours was written in 1787 and few things in the world have change since then so why not the constitution?
• i do have a gun at home, a small thing a .22LR carbine
And yes i have to admit it i would use it to defend my family ( not my home if you see the difference)
• i was on the other side of the barrel when i was travelling in the US it was probably my bad i was stupid enough to say ” excuse me sir may i ask you something” i know i m a real jerk i Will nether ask that again, but it was an interresting experience even if i was really really pissed of by that time

And last but not least i hope my post isn t a pain in the ass to read with all the mistakes i m sure i ve done plus the typos my autocorrect made me done.

I know and understand the European attitude toward guns pretty well. I lived in Europe for a year and a half and worked with officers from all over Europe. I think most of Europe views our guns laws as unreasonable, and thinks they should be changed.

But as you said, the US isn’t Europe. European countries are founded on a belief that the king/government knows what is best for the people and sets standards of behavior. The US was created with the express belief that people have certain rights no matter what any king or government says. Our rights are not decided by popular opinion, or by the whim of the current elected government; our rights are inalienable, not subject to change. They weren’t created in 1787, they were simply recognized in writing in 1787. They always existed and will always exist. If a future American government repeals the Bill of Rights, that does not mean those rights no longer exist; it means an illegitimate government is withholding freedom from our citizens. If that happens, and I’m still physically capable, I will fight against that government. I expect my sons to fight also.

You mentioned that you view humans as stupid and violent. That is a problem here too. In my opinion, Americans who support gun control view their fellow Americans as stupid, violent, unstable and out of control. The gun control supporters view themselves as, of course, intelligent, level-headed and peaceful. But they view the rest of us as stupid fools who can’t be trusted with weapons. There are tens of millions of intelligent, peaceful, non-violent gun owners in America who reject the notion that we’re all violent morons.

And on a practical level, gun control can never be accomplished. As you stated, the guns are already out there. It would take centuries to remove all the weapons that are already in circulation. And during those centuries, only the law-abiding citizens would be disarmed.

Teachers should be armed. If that means we’ve given up hope for a peaceful society, then we accept that and move on. If I, as a soldier, am on patrol and see a child walking toward me with a hand grenade, I have seconds to make a decision. I don’t have time to feel sorrow about this poor child’s life, or ask why anyone would teach a child to attack soldiers with a hand grenade, or think of ways to improve the lives of children in that country. When the child approaches me with a grenade, I have to react to the immediate problem. And when some cowardly murderer enters opens fire at a school, any considerations about what this means to society don’t matter. All that matters is stopping the killing, as soon as possible. The only adults who are there and able to do it are teachers. Police will never be there in time. Security guards can’t be everywhere. But teachers can be. And based on what we’ve seen in Utah, Ohio and Texas, many teachers are willing to carry a weapon to protect their students.

We disagree about gun control, but you’re always welcome to come here and offer your opinion. I’d really like to hear how you wound up with a gun pointed at you here in America. And don’t apologize for your English, it is much better than my French. I am taking an informal French class next month, hopefully I will be able to converse in French again soon.

I m looking forward to read you in french,
About the gun control it litteraly took me years to understand your point of view, then i figure out what you Just say ” guns are already out there and it would took centuries to Remove weapons…” So the problem is more how to live with them.
Indeed in the military/ police duty Life you have barely a second to take a decision and indeed armed teacher would be the more convenient solution about that, but i m still really concern about a proper training. would you let someone even a real good willing person but without a real training in hightly stress situation carrying a gun around your sons?
I m still to shy about that and that s why i still believe in security gards, but we never know, give me few more years and i may change my mind😉

I don’t want an untrained person carrying a weapon around my son. But I’d rather have a half-trained person with a gun there to protect my son from a school shooter, than have nobody with a weapon to fight back. Armed teachers aren’t a perfect solution, but they’re better than “surrender and hope for the best”.

Oh and BTW when i say that everyone is stupid and violent i m thinking about the fact that when people are afraid their brain stops to work efficiency
When i see people beginning a fighting sport almost everyone during the first fight will turn is head to protect himself as soon as he gets punch in the head
But when you turn your head your shoulders starts to turn aswell and even if they have already lost the fight they start uselessly blind punching

Of course i don t believe that every gun holder is a retard moron
But i m concern about in a risky situation who will keep is head cool and stay focus on his target and who Will start to turn is head and blind shoot ?

How Many accidental kill ? How Many people shooting children because they werent sure of their objective ? How many people didn t think enough each year while carrying ( or not) a gun?

Again it s easy for us european to think we can juge you cause we don t have to décide what to do in your position, if i knew lot s of bad guys were weaponised in my neighbourhood you can bet your ass that i ll be weaponised too
But the only thing de can really do is to give you a small point of view of a distant cousin🙂

I’d say the fear of people becoming foolish or out of control when carrying a weapon is misplaced. Yes, there are criminals who get stupid with weapons. But armed, trained good guys, even those with the minimum training, aren’t going crazy and murdering people. Where I live, many people carry weapons every day. Yet we’re not having problems with those people going crazy and murdering people. Our citizens are not as out-of-control as many people think.

According to statistics cited by the extremely liberal website the Daily Kos, in 2009 1146 Americans were killed in firearms accidents. Yes, that’s terrible. Accidents with weapons shouldn’t be tolerated, and gun owners need to be responsible. However, those accidents do not justify stripping Americans of a crucial right.

Loved the piece and thanks for sharing. There is hope for America that we don’t have to scream at one another and instead agree to disagree. Also nice to see there are no trolls here looking to scream at someone and that you are using a moderator to make sure that the blog is not used by some to scream at others. Keep up the good work for trying to make the world a better place! Btw, in favor of teachers carrying. When I went to school back in the day, you got tossed out for 3 days for not wearing a belt and the girls the same for the skirt not touching the ground when they kneel down. And you got no sympathy for complaining about it. That would be a high class problem today that any school would love to have. Culture has changed a tad bit, ya think?